On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:40:32 +0000
Mel Gorman <mel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Commit 341ce06f69abfafa31b9468410a13dbd60e2b237 altered watermark logic
> slightly by allowing rt_tasks that are handling an interrupt to set
> ALLOC_HARDER. This patch brings the watermark logic more in line with
> 2.6.30.
>
> [rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx: Spotted the problem]
> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mel@xxxxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: Pekka Enberg <penberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> mm/page_alloc.c | 2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> index dfa4362..7f2aa3e 100644
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -1769,7 +1769,7 @@ gfp_to_alloc_flags(gfp_t gfp_mask)
> * See also cpuset_zone_allowed() comment in kernel/cpuset.c.
> */
> alloc_flags &= ~ALLOC_CPUSET;
> - } else if (unlikely(rt_task(p)))
> + } else if (unlikely(rt_task(p)) && !in_interrupt())
> alloc_flags |= ALLOC_HARDER;
>
> if (likely(!(gfp_mask & __GFP_NOMEMALLOC))) {
What are the runtime-observeable effects of this change?
The description is a bit waffly-sounding for a -stable backportable
thing, IMO. What reason do the -stable maintainers and users have to
believe that this patch is needed, and an improvement?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-testers" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
